z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Las disputas interreligiosas bajomedievales. Sus presupuestos teóricos: Ramón Llull / Interfaith Mediaeval Disputes. Theoretical Budgets: Raymond Llull
Author(s) -
Celina A. Lértora Mendoza
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
revista española de filosofía medieval/revista española de filosofía medieval
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.101
H-Index - 1
eISSN - 2530-7878
pISSN - 1133-0902
DOI - 10.21071/refime.v20i.6008
Subject(s) - rationality , agnosticism , context (archaeology) , philosophy , originality , epistemology , falsity , novelty , literature , history , sociology , theology , art , social science , qualitative research , archaeology
In the late Middle Ages and especially in the ss. xiv and xv, we see a proliferation of interfaith disputes between Christians, Muslims and Jews, that although somewhat reissue previous practices have, for quantity, quality theoretical and practical consequences, a historical novelty. Can be classified as 1. preaching, 2. education and 3. dispute. Ramon Llull can be considered a pioneer of interreligious dialogue between Western monotheisms, in the sense of having proposed a new approach to the controversies that had centuries of experience when he wrote. While all his work, in a sense, it contributes to the idea of basing the rationality of Christian belief several works specifically devoted to interreligious dialogue, including Book of the Gentile and the Three Wise Men (Llibre del gentil e dels tres savis, 1274-1276) posed —fictional— as the reason and purpose of their efforts. An important reason to be interested in thinking luliano is that, in some respects, the problems involved in the dialogue are repeated throughout the centuries until today. There are three aspects of his thought that are interesting for their originality and the ability to compare and draw analogies and differences with the current project: 1.Integrate the debate in the context of rationality, but in a broader way than syllogistic correction or that the question of the truth or falsity of assertions isolated. 2.Find a specific objective, clear and can be shared by the partners. 3.Give agnosticism own space.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here